0
   

Definition of Reality

 
 
TickTockMan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 06:55 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;127173 wrote:
They would have no idea what they were falling off of.
I wonder what they would make of the sudden stops . . .

MMP2506;127173 wrote:
If primitive man did not have the word planet, nor the concept of planet, then planets could not have existed to them.

Perhaps you mean that the concept of planets did not exist to them. Surely, planets existed. Otherwise, where were the caves they lived in?
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 07:11 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;127156 wrote:
How do we know the real from the apparent?


... tough call, especially if Advaita philosophy is true - that is, if the knower can never be the object of knowledge, then how could the knower ever determine what his contributions to the apparent are in order to subtract them and discover the real? ...
0 Replies
 
housby
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 07:12 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;127039 wrote:
.
(By the way, what would it mean for knowledge to come before truth? In what sense of before? Temporally? Spatially? I don't think it means anything).

Temporally of course. Spatially is a nonsense. Knowledge must come before truth simply because we would have to have "knowledge" of something (anything) before we can have any truth. Try to imagine a truth (of any kind) without knowledge (of some kind). We can have knowledge without knowing for sure that it is true but we can't know the truth of anything without having knowledge of it. That is basic logic.
Here is an argument:
I believe Kennethamy exists to argue with just about everyone on this thread.
I have the knowledge that he certainly does seem to do just that.
I don't know that my first premise is true, it is simply a belief backed up by some evidence.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 01:20 AM ----------

.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 01:28 AM ----------

paulhanke;127042. perhaps it would work better as: A. Belief B. Knowledge C. Certainty ... then we can treat them as grades of probability of the possession of truth.[/QUOTE wrote:


I agree. Certainty does seem a better term.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 07:28 pm
@housby,
Somebody grilled Socrates on this question of true knowledge once.

Quote:
Meno: And how are you going to search for it when you don't know at all what it is, Socrates? Which of all the things you don't know will you set up as target for your search? And even if you actually come across it, how will you know that it is that thing which you don't know?'

In other words, if you don't know any of the attributes, properties, and/or other descriptive markers of any kind that help signify what something is (physical or otherwise), you won't recognize it, even if you actually come across it. And, as consequence, if the converse is true, and you do know the attributes, properties and/or other descriptive markers of this thing, then you shouldn't need to seek it out at all. The result of this line of thinking is that, in either instance, there is no point trying to gain that "something"; in the case of Plato's aforementioned work, there is no point in seeking knowledge.

Socrates' response is to develop his theory of anamnesis. He suggests that the soul is immortal, and repeatedly incarnated; knowledge is actually in the soul from eternity (86b), but each time the soul is incarnated its knowledge is forgotten in the shock of birth. What one perceives to be learning, then, is actually the recovery of what one has forgotten. (Once it has been brought back it is true belief, to be turned into genuine knowledge by understanding.) And thus Socrates (and Plato) sees himself, not as a teacher, but as a midwife, aiding with the birth of knowledge that was already there in the student.


This is just by way of comparison with the quote from Indian philosophy above; the two outlooks are quite similar in many respects.
TickTockMan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 07:36 pm
@jeeprs,
For some reason, this story made me think of some of the semantic gymnastics I've encountered on this thread:
Hair Dyed Back To Original Color | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 07:36 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;127173 wrote:

If primitive man did not have the word planet, nor the concept of planet, then planets could not have existed to them.

It seems like a rather basic concept in my opinion.


That is true of course. But how does that mean that planets did not exist? It doesn't. To say that planets did not exist to them only means that they did not believe there were planets. But, so what? Planets existed whether or not they believed planets existed. In the Middle Ages, people did not have the concept of germs. So what? They still got infections.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 08:15 pm
@housby,
There is an oft-told anecdote, which is related in The Fatal Impact, by Alan Moorehead. It quotes from the logs of Joseph Banks, who was the chief scientist on board the Endeavour when it sailed into Botany Bay in January 1788, to establish the colony of Australia.

The Endeavour sailed into Botany Bay, which is an almost perfectly circular bay of about 7 miles diameter. They dropped anchor some distance from shore , I think it was about 1,000 yards, but within sight of some indigenous peoples who were mending their nets on a sandbank.

Banks noted with interest that the natives paid no attention at all to the Endeavour. The crew watched them through long glasses for some hours. Then finally a long boat was winched down, and made its way towards the group. As soon as the long boat was separated from the Endeavour, there was a big commotion on the shore. The warriors were all gesticulating and waving their spears at the boat and straight away sent out a canoe to intercept it.

Thus began the long and very sad story of the decimation of the Australian native tribes by the European settlers. Banks wrote in his diary that he was curious as to why the appearance of the Endeavour had not drawn the least attention.

I believe that it was because they didn't notice it. And the reason they didn't notice it was because it was completely outside their reality. Their minds could not assimilate or recognise the Endeavour, even when it was in plain sight, so they didn't actually see it.

This can't be proven, of course. It is speculative. But it makes a point about reality.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 08:21 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;127123 wrote:

... to that, I don't have an answer ... if reductionism is true, then the first principles of physics are the "first science"; if not, then the first principles of physics may not be the only first principles of science ...


Good point. But if reductionism is made of words, wouldn't these words be prior to what reductionism addresses? I realize you weren't committing to any particular view. It's just a question in relation to your post.

It seems to me that physics is founded on notions such as causality and objectivity. I suppose it's old territory, but consciousness seems to make physics possible in the first place. Also, there's its mathematical foundation. I guess I'm just emphasizing what seems to me to be an implicit metaphysics grounding physics, as well as the trouble with explaining the role of the scientist in science. (Kant, etc.)
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 08:22 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;127221 wrote:
There is an oft-told anecdote, which is related in The Fatal Impact, by Alan Moorehead. It quotes from the logs of Joseph Banks, who was the chief scientist on board the Endeavour when it sailed into Botany Bay in January 1788, to establish the colony of Australia.

The Endeavour sailed into Botany Bay, which is an almost perfectly circular bay of about 7 miles diameter. They dropped anchor some distance from shore , I think it was about 1,000 yards, but within sight of some indigenous peoples who were mending their nets on a sandbank.

Banks noted with interest that the natives paid no attention at all to the Endeavour. The crew watched them through long glasses for some hours. Then finally a long boat was winched down, and made its way towards the group. As soon as the long boat was separated from the Endeavour, there was a big commotion on the shore. The warriors were all gesticulating and waving their spears at the boat and straight away sent out a canoe to intercept it.

Thus began the long and very sad story of the decimation of the Australian native tribes by the European settlers. Banks wrote in his diary that he was curious as to why the appearance of the Endeavour had not drawn the least attention.

I believe that it was because they didn't notice it. And the reason they didn't notice it was because it was completely outside their reality. Their minds could not assimilate or recognise the Endeavour, even when it was in plain sight, so they didn't actually see it.

This can't be proven, of course. It is speculative. But it makes a point about reality.


What is the point? Even if the natives did not see it, that does not mean it was imaginary. But did they not see the Endeavor, or did they just not see what it was. I have shopped with my wife when she was looking for a dress. And once she said that she would like that A-line dress. I was baffled. But I did see the A-line dress. What I did not see was that it was an A-line dress. And if the natives has normal eyesight, they saw the ship endeavor. What they did not see was that it was the ship Endeavor. An Esquimo can see a ladder. But he may not see that it is a ladder.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 08:27 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;127177 wrote:
I wonder what they would make of the sudden stops . . .


Perhaps you mean that the concept of planets did not exist to them. Surely, planets existed. Otherwise, where were the caves they lived in?



This is a good point. I think the crux is what we mean by "exist." Because we are now conscious, we can infer that the planets were here before consciousness of them was. But their past existence (in any human sense of the word) is still arguably dependent on our current existence. This touches the issue of time. We really can't think outside the box of human cognition.
This reminds me of the Hegel / Marx conflict. Human reality is largely revealed by discourse. This discourse has given us the mental-model of non-human reality that human's and their discourse have emerged from. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Isn't a Moebius strip an appropriate symbol here?
MMP2506
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 08:34 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;127198 wrote:
That is true of course. But how does that mean that planets did not exist? It doesn't. To say that planets did not exist to them only means that they did not believe there were planets. But, so what? Planets existed whether or not they believed planets existed. In the Middle Ages, people did not have the concept of germs. So what? They still got infections.


I find it fascinating how some people are unable to understand reality in any terms besides their own.

Germs did not exist in the Middle Ages. They called it plagues from God. Maybe one day science will discover that germs are in reality tiny aliens from another planet. In which case they will stop being called germs, and people will attribute their sickness to aliens. This would not mean that our current reality that includes germs is wrong, just different.

Its a language game really, and if the language doesn't exist then the concept can't exist.

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 08:37 PM ----------

TickTockMan;127177 wrote:
I wonder what they would make of the sudden stops . . .


Perhaps you mean that the concept of planets did not exist to them. Surely, planets existed. Otherwise, where were the caves they lived in?


What are planets other than concepts? You have never seen the whole of a planet, only pictures of one. If it weren't for scientists, you wouldn't even have enough understanding of planets to claim they exist.

Concepts change over time, therefore, reality changes over time.

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 08:41 PM ----------

paulhanke;127176 wrote:
... I think what Tock (or is it Tick? Smile) is taking exception to may only be a result of your word choice ... for example in "if you insist that the cliff exists in the reality of the blind people", it can be construed that you are saying that Reality is precisely the perception of the blind people ... if that's not what you mean, then perhaps a phrasing such as "if you insist that the cliff exists in the perceived reality of the blind people" might help ...


I agree, but if i change the words, it would change the point I'm trying to make.

Some people have a problem with thinking of reality as something that can change, but as I see it, reality is a constantly changing process. Which is why discussions like these take place. I don't see any difference between perceived reality and reality because any reality is perceived. To suggest only one actual reality exists would entail that there is one grand perceiver of all, which could be God, but I don't envision God as something that perceives as such.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 08:45 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;127225 wrote:
This is a good point. I think the crux is what we mean by "exist." Because we are now conscious, we can infer that the planets were here before consciousness of them was. But their past existence (in any human sense of the word) is still arguably dependent on our current existence. This touches the issue of time. We really can't think outside the box of human cognition.
This reminds me of the Hegel / Marx conflict. Human reality is largely revealed by discourse. This discourse has given us the mental-model of non-human reality that human's and their discourse have emerged from. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Isn't a Moebius strip an appropriate symbol here?


Why should the existence of Mars in the past be dependent on anyone's current existence. The current existence of Mars is not dependent on anyone's current existence. If everyone died of some worldwide plague, Mars would still exist.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 08:46 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;127232 wrote:
I find it fascinating how some people are unable to understand reality in any terms besides their own.

Germs did not exist in the Middle Ages. They called it plagues from God. Maybe one day science will discover that germs are in reality tiny aliens from another planet. In which case they will stop being called germs, and people will attribute their sickness to aliens. This would not mean that our current reality that includes germs is wrong, just different.

Its a language game really, and if the language doesn't exist then the concept can't exist.

What are planets other than concepts? You have never seen the whole of a planet, only pictures of one. If it weren't for scientists, you wouldn't even have enough understanding of planets to claim they exist.

Concepts change over time, therefore, reality changes over time.


I agree with all of this. Still, I can understand how some find it suspicious. The Enlightenment was arguably founded on universalism. Is that the faith of the Enlightenment? One reality/truth? A mono-realism to replace an obsolete monotheism? Does the prestige of technology make us reluctant to question its foundations? I don't think linguistic philosophy is a threat. I doubt the species will abandon its technical expertise/ideology.
MMP2506
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 08:53 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;127238 wrote:
I agree with all of this. Still, I can understand how some find it suspicious. The Enlightenment was arguably founded on universalism. Is that the faith of the Enlightenment? One reality/truth? A mono-realism to replace an obsolete monotheism? Does the prestige of technology make us reluctant to question its foundations? I don't think linguistic philosophy is a threat. I doubt the species will abandon its technical expertise/ideology.


Very true, after the Enlightenment this problem of a universal objective reality arose and we have not been able to recover on a widespread scale. If you study the Ancient philosophies, before Newtonian physics ran the world, you will find that they greatly valued the subjective experience.

Sadly we can't get rid of this mindset even though we have gotten rid of Newtonian physics. One day the culture will catch up to quantum mechanics, it will just take time.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 08:56 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;127232 wrote:
I find it fascinating how some people are unable to understand reality in any terms besides their own.

Germs did not exist in the Middle Ages. They called it plagues from God. Maybe one day science will discover that germs are in reality tiny aliens from another planet. In which case they will stop being called germs, and people will attribute their sickness to aliens. This would not mean that our current reality that includes germs is wrong, just different.

Its a language game really, and if the language doesn't exist then the concept can't exist.

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 08:37 PM ----------



What are planets other than concepts? You have never seen the whole of a planet, only pictures of one. If it weren't for scientists, you wouldn't even have enough understanding of planets to claim they exist.

Concepts change over time, therefore, reality changes over time.

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 08:41 PM ----------



I agree, but if i change the words, it would change the point I'm trying to make.

Some people have a problem with thinking of reality as something that can change, but as I see it, reality is a constantly changing process. Which is why discussions like these take place. I don't see any difference between perceived reality and reality because any reality is perceived. To suggest only one actual reality exists would entail that there is one grand perceiver of all, which could be God, but I don't envision God as something that perceives as such.


What do you mean germs did not exist in the Middle Ages because there was no word "germs". Since when does the existence of something depend on whether there is a word for that something? What the hell do you think caused the plague if not germs?

Planets are not concepts. Planets are planets, and concept are concepts. "Everything is what it is, and not another thing" Joseph Butler. If planets were concepts they would be in the head. But planets are not in the head. Therefore, planets are not concepts. Mars orbits the Sun. Concepts do not orbit anything.

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 09:59 PM ----------

Reconstructo;127238 wrote:
I agree with all of this. Still, I can understand how some find it suspicious. The Enlightenment was arguably founded on universalism. Is that the faith of the Enlightenment? One reality/truth? A mono-realism to replace an obsolete monotheism? Does the prestige of technology make us reluctant to question its foundations? I don't think linguistic philosophy is a threat. I doubt the species will abandon its technical expertise/ideology.


You agree there were no germs in the Middle Ages? When do you think germs began to exist, then? And what the hell do you think caused infections in the Middle Ages?
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 08:59 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;127222 wrote:
Good point. But if reductionism is made of words, wouldn't these words be prior to what reductionism addresses? I realize you weren't committing to any particular view. It's just a question in relation to your post.

It seems to me that physics is founded on notions such as causality and objectivity. I suppose it's old territory, but consciousness seems to make physics possible in the first place. Also, there's its mathematical foundation. I guess I'm just emphasizing what seems to me to be an implicit metaphysics grounding physics, as well as the trouble with explaining the role of the scientist in science. (Kant, etc.)


... given that no-one to date has adequately demonstrated the truth or falsity of reductionism, I think the what feeds it are what Schopenhauer says are necessary for human experience: our inborn notions of space, time, and causality that allow us to turn raw sensing into perception ... in that sense, I think that it can be said that such notions make classical physics possible - but I don't know how true such a statement is with respect to quantum mechanics and general relativity (which are beyond human perception) ...

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 08:11 PM ----------

MMP2506;127232 wrote:
I don't see any difference between perceived reality and reality because any reality is perceived. To suggest only one actual reality exists would entail that there is one grand perceiver of all ...


... so then I take it that for you if every human were to suddenly pass away leaving no-one to perceive, that there would be no reality? ... and that reality today is at once both that the earth is flat (because some people believe it to be so) and the earth is round (because other people believe it to be so)? ... and that when my cousin died the reality was at once both that he died of cancer (because the doctor believed it to be so) and that he died from being poisoned by the doctor (because his wife believed it to be so)? ...
Scottydamion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 09:27 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;127249 wrote:
What do you mean germs did not exist in the Middle Ages because there was no word "germs". Since when does the existence of something depend on whether there is a word for that something? What the hell do you think caused the plague if not germs?

Planets are not concepts. Planets are planets, and concept are concepts. "Everything is what it is, and not another thing" Joseph Butler. If planets were concepts they would be in the head. But planets are not in the head. Therefore, planets are not concepts. Mars orbits the Sun. Concepts do not orbit anything.

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 09:59 PM ----------



You agree there were no germs in the Middle Ages? When do you think germs began to exist, then? And what the hell do you think caused infections in the Middle Ages?


In the perceived reality of the Middle Ages, germs did not exist, but plagues from God existed. What I think he is saying is that a germ is only a concept because if germs turn out to be tiny aliens then the concept of a germ is symbolic for the effects of the tiny aliens, just as plagues from God is a symbol for the effects of germs. Does that make sense?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 09:32 pm
@housby,
No. I think Kennethamy is observing that reality exists whether you believe in it or not. Germs exist whether we know it or not, and the fact that Pasteur was able to figure this was a momentous breakthrough in science. HOWEVER it is also true that reality is inextricably a function of our perception. The problem I think everyone is having is precisely at this point, by saying 'our perception? what is that?'. It is NEVER an object to us. So saying 'the world exists in my mind' is false. But to say 'the world exists in MIND' is something else. Deep argument I know. But I think this is where Schopenhaur (see above) was coming from.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 09:36 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;127274 wrote:
In the perceived reality of the Middle Ages, germs did not exist, but plagues from God existed. What I think he is saying is that a germ is only a concept because if germs turn out to be tiny aliens then the concept of a germ is symbolic for the effects of the tiny aliens, just as plagues from God is a symbol for the effects of germs. Does that make sense?


I guess what you mean by, in the perceived reality of the Middle Ages, germs did not exist, but plagues from God existed, is that people in the Middle Ages did not know about germs causing disease, but they believed that God caused disease.

And I agree, of course.

Do you agree that is what you meant? Only you said it in philosophese.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 09:44 pm
@jeeprs,
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 12/10/2024 at 11:55:13